Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Grave concerns over Maidstone planning documents
As you may well be aware, Maidstone Borough Council has issued its draft Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations and draft Integrated Transport Strategy for public consultation. These are important documents which will determine the development and growth of the Borough up to 2026.
The Maidstone district committee of CPRE Protect Kent has grave concerns over the suggestions put forward in these proposals, which do not support the regeneration of Maidstone’s town centre that is so desperately needed. We will be making our thoughts known to the MBC in no uncertain terms.
As a valued supporter of CPRE Protect Kent in Maidstone Borough, you may also wish to respond to these public consultations, and we would urge you to do so.
Our concerns can be summarised as follows:
- The Council is proposing that 10,080 new houses are built in this period. This represents an additional population of about 25,000 at current house occupancy rates, which is nearly a 20% increase on the current population. No particular new services are included to meet this increase other than some minor transport ideas.
- The housing sites proposed are: one along London Road; two of the large fields near the hospital either side of Hermitage Lane; and very large areas either side of Sutton Road in Park Wood, as well as just over 1000 new houses in the major villages.
- In addition there are proposals for major industrial or commercial development at two sites at M20 motorway junctions. At J7, retail and possibly medical services will be allowed around and beyond the Notcutts area. At J8, industrial and commercial development is proposed on sites which include land where the Kent International Gateway was recently so strongly opposed.
- Industrial and commercial development at these sites will have a major adverse effect on Maidstone’s town centre and the town’s setting in open countryside.
Details can be found on the Maidstone Borough Council website: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk
The full documents can be viewed, and responses made, online or at the Council’s offices. Replies to the consultation are required by 1 October 2012.
Your Views Matter
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
